An archetype is a model of a person, character or ideal that occurs often in cultural texts. We like to think of archetypes as being universally recognizeable, regardless of history and geography. You might think of archetypes as history's stock characters. As stock characters, they are generally flat. They are uncomplicated, oversimplified, and often stereotypical figures that epitomize broad cultural ideas.
It's important to recognize archetypes in literature. As cultural references, archetypes are used and manipulated by artists in various always multivalent ways. A writer can write against an archetype, upsetting our expections about how that character should behave and necessarily questioning why certain behaviors are prescribed by our culture. Thus archetypes can be used to affirm existing status quos as well as to critique those structures. When dealing with archetypes of femininity--indeed in dealing with any character, really--it's best to ask a few questions:
1) What is the female character like? Characterize the character and don't be afraid to articulate contradictions. Remember, it's the cracks in characters and fissures in texts that we use to open a text up.
2) How is her portrayal achieved? This is where you wow us with your knowledge of literary devices, tropes and figures.
3) How does she confirm or upset our expectations?
4) What does her character mean in the world of the text? In our world? To be reductive: what does she say about society?
Archetypes v. Stereotypes
Both occur in literature and art. In order to establish a distinction, let us consider the Greek roots. Arch- means chief, first or rule (patriarchy = father rule). Archetypes, then, can be said to be first, original or prototypical examples that embody a certain character. Archetypes are repositories that encompass conscious and unconscious dispositions (archetype came into contemporary parlance by way of psychology). Stereo- means solid, firm and hard. As such, stereotypes tend to be one-dimensional over-simplifications. Where an archetype can contain a broad spectrum of embodiments, a stereotype is extremely limited and those who use them are often (fairly) labeled as narrow-minded. An archetype can be very complicated, nuanced and even contradictory because they include such a range of embodiments (a character is said to embody an archetype); consider how different these mothers are, and yet they all embody the archetype of “mother”: Eve, Virgin Mary, Hester Prynn, Queen Elizabeth. But a stereotype is flat, clichéd and usual uncomplicated and thus uninteresting. A writer manipulates and complicates archetypes; s/he resorts to stereotypes.
Another way to think about the differences between archetypes and stereotypes is by paying attention to how these types evolve through culture. By definition (remember arch- = first), archetypes are primary. The characters that embody certain archetypes are complicated, often exhibiting the multiple, contradictory traits of round characters. As we (culture) consume and discuss these embodiments (through discourse) certain aspects are isolated and highlighted. By simplifying characters we reduce them to stereotypes. Thus we can say that most stereotypes can be traced back to a much more complicated archetype. Consider the Temptress. There are many possible incarnations she has taken over the years, one of which is Marilyn Monroe. She has become an icon, a gross simplification of her historical, complicated person into a much simpler persona: she is beautiful, she is lusty and she leverages her sexuality in a male world (did she have an affair with JFK?). We could compartmentalize her further persona further: she often plays “the dumb blonde” while being intelligent enough to manipulate men. But these of course are only aspects of a larger complex. Marilyn Monroe can be said to embody an archetype while being reduced to a stereotype. It is perhaps the existence of multiple, competing stereotypes that make her such an interested embodiment of a primordial archetype, the Temptress.
Women Wiki Post
Archetypes
An archetype is a model of a person, character or ideal that occurs often in cultural texts. We like to think of archetypes as being universally recognizeable, regardless of history and geography. You might think of archetypes as history's stock characters. As stock characters, they are generally flat. They are uncomplicated, oversimplified, and often stereotypical figures that epitomize broad cultural ideas.
It's important to recognize archetypes in literature. As cultural references, archetypes are used and manipulated by artists in various always multivalent ways. A writer can write against an archetype, upsetting our expections about how that character should behave and necessarily questioning why certain behaviors are prescribed by our culture. Thus archetypes can be used to affirm existing status quos as well as to critique those structures. When dealing with archetypes of femininity--indeed in dealing with any character, really--it's best to ask a few questions:
1) What is the female character like? Characterize the character and don't be afraid to articulate contradictions. Remember, it's the cracks in characters and fissures in texts that we use to open a text up.
2) How is her portrayal achieved? This is where you wow us with your knowledge of literary devices, tropes and figures.
3) How does she confirm or upset our expectations?
4) What does her character mean in the world of the text? In our world? To be reductive: what does she say about society?
Archetypes v. Stereotypes
Both occur in literature and art. In order to establish a distinction, let us consider the Greek roots. Arch- means chief, first or rule (patriarchy = father rule). Archetypes, then, can be said to be first, original or prototypical examples that embody a certain character. Archetypes are repositories that encompass conscious and unconscious dispositions (archetype came into contemporary parlance by way of psychology). Stereo- means solid, firm and hard. As such, stereotypes tend to be one-dimensional over-simplifications. Where an archetype can contain a broad spectrum of embodiments, a stereotype is extremely limited and those who use them are often (fairly) labeled as narrow-minded. An archetype can be very complicated, nuanced and even contradictory because they include such a range of embodiments (a character is said to embody an archetype); consider how different these mothers are, and yet they all embody the archetype of “mother”: Eve, Virgin Mary, Hester Prynn, Queen Elizabeth. But a stereotype is flat, clichéd and usual uncomplicated and thus uninteresting. A writer manipulates and complicates archetypes; s/he resorts to stereotypes.
Another way to think about the differences between archetypes and stereotypes is by paying attention to how these types evolve through culture. By definition (remember arch- = first), archetypes are primary. The characters that embody certain archetypes are complicated, often exhibiting the multiple, contradictory traits of round characters. As we (culture) consume and discuss these embodiments (through discourse) certain aspects are isolated and highlighted. By simplifying characters we reduce them to stereotypes. Thus we can say that most stereotypes can be traced back to a much more complicated archetype. Consider the Temptress. There are many possible incarnations she has taken over the years, one of which is Marilyn Monroe. She has become an icon, a gross simplification of her historical, complicated person into a much simpler persona: she is beautiful, she is lusty and she leverages her sexuality in a male world (did she have an affair with JFK?). We could compartmentalize her further persona further: she often plays “the dumb blonde” while being intelligent enough to manipulate men. But these of course are only aspects of a larger complex. Marilyn Monroe can be said to embody an archetype while being reduced to a stereotype. It is perhaps the existence of multiple, competing stereotypes that make her such an interested embodiment of a primordial archetype, the Temptress.
Women Project